Socio-demographic associations with digit and pacifier sucking at 15 months of age and possible associations with infant infection. The ALSPAC Study Team. Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood.

AIMS: To assess the prevalence of pacifier and digit sucking at 15 months of age and to investigate whether this habit adversely affects the health of 18 month old infants.

STUDY

DESIGN

Data collected via self-completion questionnaires from mothers forming part of the prospective, population based Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood.

SUBJECTS AND

METHODS

The mothers of 10006 infants gave information on their child's use of a pacifier and of digit sucking at 15 months of age and the presence of specific health symptoms at 18 months of age. Adjusted logistic regression was performed to identify any statistically significant associations between pacifier use, digit sucking or a combination of the two with possible infection.

RESULTS

36.3% of infants sucked a pacifier, 21. 3% their thumb or finger and 2.7% sucked both at 15 months. Statistically significant differences were observed among various socio-demographic variables. Mothers were more likely to give their child a pacifier if they were younger, had lower levels of education, experienced greater financial difficulties or lived in council housing (compared to owned/mortgaged). The opposite was apparent for digit suckers. After allowing for these possible confounding factors, pacifier users had a higher incidence of earache and colic compared to children with no sucking habit, however digit suckers had a lower incidence of these symptoms. Children who sucked both were significantly more likely to have reported wheezing, earache, and poor health in the past month.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly different sociodemographic characteristics were observed with pacifier suckers compared to those who sucked their thumb or finger. It is almost impossible to attribute the direction of causality between infection and a sucking habit. Further and more detailed studies are needed before any recommendations can be made based on the statistically significant associations found as they are unlikely to be of major clinical significance.